5 ms·

My only concern is that the people who run the tools etc. have their political view. For example "https://tacticalvote.co.uk" https://tacticalvote.co.uk" is cle

My only concern is that the people who run the tools etc. have their political view. For example "https://tacticalvote.co.uk" https://tacticalvote.co.uk" is clearly against the Conservative party. So that tool is straight away biased.

dangerface 7y ago
> UNITE AGAINST THE TORIES Every one has a bias at least they own it. As long as they are not pretending to be unbiased I'm fine with it.
- methehack 7y ago
  If promoting voting or identifying the disinformation campaigns of nation states is considered bias, than consider me happily labeled. However, I think there's something categorically different about such tools as they are not so much promoting a specific outcome as allowing for a more representative outcome, aka a functioning democracy where people are exchanging ideas not click rates.
  - dangerface 7y ago
    Our representative democracy is setup as a two party system (first past the post elections) if we want a more representative outcome we should switch to a direct democracy or implement the alternative vote. Free exchange of ideas is my ultimate goal but the average voter doesn't share this goal, they get their information from "authoritative" sources such as "their" party or the mass media. We did have a vote to bring in the alternate vote but every major party (left and right) and media outlet (left and right) slammed it as anti-democratic. We can't depend on the average voter to get informed and vote representatively because the system intentionally prevents this.
    - specialist 7y ago
      "alternative vote" If you mean switch from FPTP to some form of RCV for executive positions or proportional representation (PR) for assemblies, then I agree. For RCV, I strongly prefer Approval Voting, which best balances fairness and simplicity. But we'll get the most benefits from PR.
      - Pete_D 7y ago
        "alternative vote" is the term the UK ended up using for instant-runoff voting when it had a referendum a few years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
        Wildgoose 7y ago
        Not quite. I think the proposals only affected the top two ranked candidates in the first round, i.e. arguably no better than First Past the Post. Approval Voting would be simple, easy to understand and a vast improvemnet.
      - dangerface 7y ago
        > If you mean switch from FPTP Yup don't really care what the new vote is. I live in Northern Ireland where we have single transferable vote I think its great. It hasn't fixed our two party system but I have noticed a dramatic change in the way people think about voting. For the most part people no longer feel the need to vote against some one and now vote for who they want, I have also noticed people seem to feel their vote is worth more as a result.
nathan_young 7y ago
Feel free to edit text to note if tools are biased/add tools with different biases. (disclosure, I helped initiate the doc)
mhh__ 7y ago
Think about the name... You have to vote tactically against something ergo someone
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Or _for_ something. All electoral systems have flaws, all the ones that would be practical for this purpose (election of individual candidate representatives from a list by the general population) are subject to tactical voting of some sort. In this case - FPTP - the tactics are to identify the (usually two) candidates that most plausibly could win in your district and pick from those, ignoring all other candidates. If Apples win with 310 votes and Bears had 290 votes, those Apple-haters who gave Cheese 60 votes to come in a distant third are kicking themselves. For many (millions of?) voters in the UK the idea is to achieve a specific outcome on a single issue (Brexit) which is not actually on the ballot at all, so tactics come into deciding how to vote so as to make your preferred outcome more likely to occur.
specialist 7y ago
Only trust mutual mistrust. When all the belligerents, err aspirants, certify the results, then it's probably good enough.
pjc50 7y ago
Well .. yes? Almost nobody gets into politics without a reason. Nobody is going to put effort into something without an objective to achieve. Nobody is unbiased. And trying to treat good and bad ideas the same way, or honest and dishonest people, is doomed to encourage the bad to drive out the good.

dangerface 7y ago

> UNITE AGAINST THE TORIES Every one has a bias at least they own it. As long as they are not pretending to be unbiased I'm fine with it.

methehack 7y ago
If promoting voting or identifying the disinformation campaigns of nation states is considered bias, than consider me happily labeled. However, I think there's something categorically different about such tools as they are not so much promoting a specific outcome as allowing for a more representative outcome, aka a functioning democracy where people are exchanging ideas not click rates.
- dangerface 7y ago
  Our representative democracy is setup as a two party system (first past the post elections) if we want a more representative outcome we should switch to a direct democracy or implement the alternative vote. Free exchange of ideas is my ultimate goal but the average voter doesn't share this goal, they get their information from "authoritative" sources such as "their" party or the mass media. We did have a vote to bring in the alternate vote but every major party (left and right) and media outlet (left and right) slammed it as anti-democratic. We can't depend on the average voter to get informed and vote representatively because the system intentionally prevents this.
  - specialist 7y ago
    "alternative vote" If you mean switch from FPTP to some form of RCV for executive positions or proportional representation (PR) for assemblies, then I agree. For RCV, I strongly prefer Approval Voting, which best balances fairness and simplicity. But we'll get the most benefits from PR.
    - Pete_D 7y ago
      "alternative vote" is the term the UK ended up using for instant-runoff voting when it had a referendum a few years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
      - Wildgoose 7y ago
        Not quite. I think the proposals only affected the top two ranked candidates in the first round, i.e. arguably no better than First Past the Post. Approval Voting would be simple, easy to understand and a vast improvemnet.
    - dangerface 7y ago
      > If you mean switch from FPTP Yup don't really care what the new vote is. I live in Northern Ireland where we have single transferable vote I think its great. It hasn't fixed our two party system but I have noticed a dramatic change in the way people think about voting. For the most part people no longer feel the need to vote against some one and now vote for who they want, I have also noticed people seem to feel their vote is worth more as a result.

nathan_young 7y ago

Feel free to edit text to note if tools are biased/add tools with different biases. (disclosure, I helped initiate the doc)

mhh__ 7y ago

Think about the name... You have to vote tactically against something ergo someone

tialaramex 7y ago
Or _for_ something. All electoral systems have flaws, all the ones that would be practical for this purpose (election of individual candidate representatives from a list by the general population) are subject to tactical voting of some sort. In this case - FPTP - the tactics are to identify the (usually two) candidates that most plausibly could win in your district and pick from those, ignoring all other candidates. If Apples win with 310 votes and Bears had 290 votes, those Apple-haters who gave Cheese 60 votes to come in a distant third are kicking themselves. For many (millions of?) voters in the UK the idea is to achieve a specific outcome on a single issue (Brexit) which is not actually on the ballot at all, so tactics come into deciding how to vote so as to make your preferred outcome more likely to occur.

specialist 7y ago

Only trust mutual mistrust. When all the belligerents, err aspirants, certify the results, then it's probably good enough.

pjc50 7y ago

Well .. yes? Almost nobody gets into politics without a reason. Nobody is going to put effort into something without an objective to achieve. Nobody is unbiased. And trying to treat good and bad ideas the same way, or honest and dishonest people, is doomed to encourage the bad to drive out the good.